(RP) The Science of GMing

It's not a science at all, but an art. In that, I mean what is right and wrong is subjective rather than absolute. I fully believe there is no universal "right way" to run a game, because different groups have different perspectives with different constraints. Usually a group will form some sort of consensus, a balance between styles, based on those within.


There are many, many factors in running a game. Of late, I've been thinking about the expectation of reaction or pro-action of the player characters. On one extreme, you may have a game that's completely planned in advance and "on rails," where nothing the PCs do really changes anything. On the other extreme, one might see a completely open "sandbox" game, where the GM plans nothing in advance and merely faciliates and/or gauges reactions to what the PCs do.

I think it's probably fair to say most games fall somewhere between those poles. I suspect many roleplayers' first experience with "formal" (ie. picking up a published book and using the rules therein) RPGs lean more toward the former. D&D was arguably designed that way: "Here's the rules, here's a module, run their characters through this." There are a number of games out there which tend toward the latter extreme, even blurring the line of whether there is a GM, in creating a collaborative storytelling situation. There's a lot of possibilities, and I think gamers' opinions and ideals change over time as they're exposed to new things and have positive or negative experiences with any given style.

I was definitely introduced into RPGs with a GM who laid out the situation and challenge, asking me then "What do you do?" I participated in a reactive role. For a number of years, I'm fairly certain that was the general bias to gaming between my friends and I even as we moved into home-brew systems and passed the baton of GM-ship around. The GM would challenge, the PCs would decide how to overcome. The GM was expected to make situations in which the PCs would be doing something, and the players reacted to that.

It was something of a revelation when I realized what I could do with a story in this sort of set up. As the GM, I could craft a storyline, small or great, that the PCs would be woven into. The basic story was mine, but the final result came about from the participation of the players. It was a sure-fire way to inject a certain level of awesomeness into a campaign, because the PC were fated to overcome an ancient evil (or whatever). There was no wondering what they might do. At least in the overall scheme of things, what they would do was a given.

And my players generally loved me for it. I received a good deal of praise for being a "good DM." I don't recall having been accused of "railroading," though I'm not sure if that's because we weren't fully appreciative of the concept, or if they really felt it wasn't there. As I read about GMs railroading players, and players wanting more choice, I know it altered my own outlook some. I took a closer view at my style and, I think, ended up loosening the reins. Even so, my group of friends seemed accustomed and comfortable with a more reactive role and I got good at motivating the characters toward predictable ends, so I could flesh out the path they would most likely want to take. There was one particular game, I had a manipulative quasi-villain NPC with absurdly high mental abilities. I simulated this by "letting" him make plans based on what I knew. Though he couldn't read the PCs minds (and I couldn't read the players'), their actions were predictable enough that "we" were almost always correct in the predictions.

It was somewhat jarring to be introduced to things situations on MU*s where any RP was more cooperative/collaborative. One person might run a scene, but it was rarely the same person more than any other. And the only real way for your character to accomplish something was to be proactive and (often) play the role of GM. It was strange, but it worked for a while. Over time, I've seen a decline in that. Maybe it's because the player base I interact with is older, different, or the responsibilities offline take too much attention, but I've perceived a marked shift back toward reactive players. Which, in a place like FurryFaire, usually means nothing happening.

Likewise, I've seen more open sandbox games offline over the years. Of course, "more" is relative. I've also seen one or two completely railroaded ones in recent years. While either one can work, they both have problems, too. I find I don't derive a great deal of enjoyment from spending an entire session either 1) waiting for the GM to tell me what happens next because nothing I do matters, or 2) doing nothing but trying to plan (often in an absence of solid information) without making any progress. It's more fun as a player to feel like you have a choice and make a difference (whether you actually do or not). And yet, if the GM improvises everything, you can get uneven play and boring stretches because players aren't doing enough. So there at pitfalls on both sides.

Another problem, is expectations that simply don't line up. Sometimes, it's a GM who expects players to be proactive while the players sit waiting for something to happen. Sometimes, it's actually one person. I've had a GM say they like and want proactive players, then basically give them no chance to do their own thing. That's not very honest, fair, or productive in the long run.

Myself... I've all but retired from GMing. I still have the desire once in a while, but it's usually quashed due to impracticalities. Gaming time offline is scarce these days. Gaming online is a mess usually. I still lean toward crafting a story with flexibility built in. When I thought up the Star Wars campaign that's still on indefinite hold, I envisioned a sort of introductory period for a few session (okay, several sessions, given the time things take online) that would lay out a sketch of the overall situation for the PCs before opening things up. Past that, I would only plan specifics for the route that seemed most likely, but I'd keep open to alternatives. I would like to see some initiative now and again from players, but I'd make sure things didn't grind to a halt because they didn't feel like doing anything. That's where I choose to balance things, because that's what I've had the best experience with in the past.

End of Line.